Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We know that. Nobody cares. Nobody cares what you believe as long as it stays out of public school science classes.
It expresses my opinion, is all. Otherwise I don't care what you believe with repect to your religion. But you are suffering from some serious misunderstandings about science, which seems a shame as you could easily clear them up.And there you go again, saying something that is completely contrary to your actions.
If you don't care, then stop replying to me. I mean it's not as if what I think or don't think has a thing to do with it being taught in schools. Not even sure how that comment was relative lol...
Cop out, science is all about proving things out.
But you all keep trying to convince us proof is not needed for evolution, it's something we should just believe..
Hilarious
If I may make a small correction to your post: "Just listening to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up."Just goes to show that you've never received a decent science education. Just talking to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up.
Well, I have a theory, that is to say a conjecture. As I said above,that, creationists are incredulous that us evos, especially Christian evos, are willing to chuck the absolute accurate proven truth of Genesis for the merely confirmed provisional truth of science. The basis of it is, I believe, is that theology proceeds by deductive logic. Its conclusions are indeed proven. Science, on the other hand, is based on inductive logic and its conclusions are confirmed, rather than proven. The conclusions of theology, being proven, have a character of certainty which Kenny cannot find in mere confirmation. He, like many creationists, resents the idea that he is to abandon the proven certainty of creationism for the provisional confirmation of science.If I may make a small correction to your post: "Just listening to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up."
Kenny seems proficient at talking. I think it's the listening skill that would benefit from some work.
Well, I have a theory, that is to say a conjecture. As I said above,that, creationists are incredulous that us evos, especially Christian evos, are willing to chuck the absolute accurate proven truth of Genesis for the merely confirmed provisional truth of science. The basis of it is, I believe, is that theology proceeds by deductive logic. Its conclusions are indeed proven. Science, on the other hand, is based on inductive logic and its conclusions are confirmed, rather than proven. The conclusions of theology, being proven, have a character of certainty which Kenny cannot find in mere confirmation. He, like many creationists, resents the idea that he is to abandon the proven certainty of creationism for the provisional confirmation of science.
It is not futile. While some have closed ears and eyes, there are others lurking silently and reading and thinking. What you have posted and the arguments presented by yourself and others will reach some of those lurkers. Never think the effort is futile! Keep at it.I know that this is an exercise in futility,
So what? It's still the most reasonable inference from that evidence and much much more. What evidence would make annother inference more reasonable?
It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.
And that is his psychological out, he can tell himself, evolution can not be proven. Never mind, all the other scientific theories he takes advantage of, each and every day of his life are not proven either, but simply supported with evidence and evolution happens to be one of the most well evidenced.
Think it could have something to do with protecting his personal faith belief?
Fortunately, that's exactly how it works.Unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way.
And that is his psychological out, he can tell himself, evolution can not be proven. Never mind, all the other scientific theories he takes advantage of, each and every day of his life are not proven either, but simply supported with evidence and evolution happens to be one of the most well evidenced.
Think it could have something to do with protecting his personal faith belief?
It's not one, it's many.What unproven theories are you talking about?
It's not one, it's many.What unproven theories are you talking about?
It's not one, it's many.What unproven theories are you talking about?
It's not one, it's many.What unproven theories are you talking about?
It's not one, it's many.What unproven theories are you talking about?
It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.
It's not the facts that in dispute. It's the interpretation. The evidence can just as easily show that all things are not the same and we don't have a common ancestor. It's how you interpret the facts.
You can't have ERVs being 8% of the human genome without some impossible assumptions either. Common descent explains nothing and assumes everything, that's how that works.No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.
You can't have ERVs being 8% of the human genome without some impossible assumptions either. Common descent explains nothing and assumes everything, that's how that works.No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.
It's not about how you interpret, it's about how ERVs become 8% of the human genome. Common descent explains nothing but assumes everything.No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.
What unproven theories are you talking about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?